I am a tabula rasa judge, that judges from the flow. The W/M is how I am supposed to weigh the round and will influence the way that I judge the arguments presented. In your rebuttal give me voters. Do not use speed to excess. I am a flow judge, and if you speak faste than I can type, it will not make it onto the flow.

As a former debater I believe letting the debaters define the round is the best part of NPDA. Therefore, I am tabula rasa and enjoy any and all arguments. I enjoy critiques, topicality, etc. What you tell me during rounds is what I go by. However,  if you run an argument  such as topicality  you must show me the abuse that is taking place within the round to win my ballot. I do not interpret nor assume any argument that is not explicitly given. I will not do the work for you. 

Debate Background

High School: CX & L/D (Indiana)

Bachelors: NPDA & BP (DePauw)

Masters (Coached): NPDA, BP, & NEDA (Ball State)

Doctorate (Coach): NPDA & BP (Morehouse)

Disclaimer: My paradigm is best suited to the Worlds/BP community as I am most familiar with that debate community’s rules and norms. I am unfamiliar with the norms created by other college debate communities. I STRONGLY suggest you ask me any questions you think are important before the debate begins. If you feel that I have left something out of this paradigm then please contact me so I can provide more information.

Short Points (of my personal opinion)

· If something is said in the round it now exists. The performance of debate is unconditional while arguments made can have applied conditionality.

· This is the round that matters. I do not care about past performances from previous rounds and future performances from subsequent rounds.

· Trichotomy is important in parliamentary debate.

· I highly dislike “speed” and view the tactic as abuse.

· Affirmative teams should affirm the resolution and debate the resolution.

· Critical positions are okay but tricky.

· I will not call for evidence after the round. If something is unclear during the debate then it is unclear on my ballot.

· Tell me what the role of my ballot should be for this round.

· My average speaking range is 25-28 (30 is the greatest speech I have ever seen). This can, and often does, change depending on what they tournament director recommends.

Long Points (of my personal opinion)

Tricotomy. Collegiate debate is about education and education can be best achieved when all types of debate can be represented. I believe that rounds of fact, value, and policy are mutually beneficial when run correctly. A common argument against this stance is that policy interpretations encompass both fact and value. This position blatantly ignores what makes for good fact and value rounds. If you feel that every round should be policy regardless of the wording of the resolution then please spend your time participating in a debate format that exclusively offers policy resolutions. Also, if you truly believe that policy debate is better than everything else please spend your time petitioning the NSDA to end the formats of Public Forum and Lincoln/Douglas at the high school level.

Communication is not Conditional. Debate is a performance wherein everyone in the room performs. Once something is said in the round it then becomes unconditional to the performance of the debaters. The affirmative is bound to defend their performed advocacy and the negative is bound to defend their performed advocacy. This is a formal way of saying "don't be an asshole" in the debate.

Rules of Debate. All debaters should conform to the rules of their respective debate organization. If a debater/team feels that those rules deserve to be broken they must outline in the round why it is important to break the rules.

The NPDA rules can be found at the following link: http://www.parlidebate.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/npdarules-0608.pdf

Tag-Team Questions. The rules outline designated times when each speaker delivers material for the debate. This is there time to shine, not their partners. I do not like a tag-team style of cross examination/Points of Interest because I do not find it persuasive. This is reflected in the speaker points.

Speed of Delivery. “Speed” is speaking at a rate of delivery that far exceeds everyday, casual conversation. Speed in debate is a tactic designed to exclude those who cannot keep up. This division of have/have-nots reinforces privilege, discriminates against non-native English speakers, and can be interpreted as ablest. If your opponent and/or your judge asks for you to slow down then please slow down.

Topicality. When prompted through the resolution, affirmative teams should present policies that are topical. Topicality exists when in-round abuse can be illuminated by the opposition debaters. I usually look to topicality first when evaluating the round.

Counterplans. I can only keep track of so much in my head, so please stick to one counterplan if you decide to include this type of argument in the round. The best counterplans are non-topical and mutually exclusive. All counterplans are unconditional advocacies which may or may not make it to the end of the debate.

Kritiks. Kritiks work very well in debate formats that privilege evidence in the debate space (CEDA/NDT) and not as well when that evidence is restricted (NPDA). Running a kritik effectively requires a thorough knowledge over the critical material and a clear alternative. Like counterplans, kritiks are unconditional advocacies which may or may not make it to the end of the debate.

Preparation Time. Prep time starts at the conclusion of one speech and ends at the start of the next speech. Some debate communities find this statement overly harsh; if you subscribe to one of these communities then please ask for clarification.

Non-Traditional Debate Styles. From my personal encounters with teams utilizing non-traditional debate styles, majority of the debater’s advocacy centers on the role of the ballot. The following is the section from the NPDA Rules outlining the “Objective of Debate”.

The proposition team must affirm the resolution by presenting and defending a sufficient case for that resolution. The opposition team must oppose the resolution and/or the proposition team’s case. If, at the end of the debate, the judge believes that the proposition team has supported and successfully defended the resolution, they will be declared the winner, otherwise the opposition will be declared the winner. (NPDA, 2008)

If your advocacy disagrees with any part of this statement you must argue why this is the case in the round. The best advocates heavily discuss the resolution presented.

Procedurals:

 T-I have no artificial threshold on topicality. I will vote on abuse. Typically, cross x checks back on T.

 Ks-framwork is paramount and the alternative. Please do not run "Vote Neg" as the sole alternative. There

      should be more thought on the alt.

 Speed. I have a high school and college policy background. I coached CEDA from 93-00 and coach NPDA, parli style

  from 01-present

  Counterplans--PICS are fine. Agent CPS are fine. In the end, I am tabula rasa and will default to impact calc to resolve plan debate

  Das--uniqueness is key. Internal links are important. Please watch double turning yourself in the 2AC. I do not like performative contradictions and will vote against them

 Performance/Project-I am progressive and liberal here. Run it and defend it. If you are on the other side, debate it straight up. A counter-performance is a legit strategy.

Have fun. I dislike rude debaters. I will vote on language abuse if a team calls it (ex: sexist, racist, etc lang)

She/her/hers. Currently a K-12 social studies curriculum writer, formerly a middle school and college debate coach. I returned to assistant coach for Mercer University from 2021-2022 having previously competed as our program was making its transition from small, Southern tournaments to large NPDA tournaments. I have been out of college debate for about nine years - my background is in K-12 education, and I have coached some middle and high school programs, mostly public forum debate and a little policy. My teams have won the middle school Urban Debate League national championships in public forum (2020) and the NPDA championships in novice NPDA debate (2022). I am now happily retired from coaching, but still occasionally enjoy judging.

I am not super technical, but I enjoy hearing all kinds of arguments and I like it when I can learn something new in-round. I am good with most kinds of arguments, strategies, and approaches to debate. I like good organization, lots of signposting, and rebuttals that group and collapse arguments intelligently so that I can discern exactly where you want me to vote. Overall I believe the debate space is yours. I want you to be able to debate about the things you like to debate about, in the way that you like to debate about them, but I think there are a few things that are fair for you to know about me, so here they are.

(1) I am convinced that spreading can be problematic for the activity, and is potentially ill-suited to an NPDA debate format where the topic changes from round to round and there are no text files we can share to help people follow along. To be honest top speeds and lack of clarity trigger a migraine for me nine times out of ten and I want to listen to debates at conversational to slightly faster than conversational rates. On your end, it is probably important to you that I can hear and follow all of your arguments.

(2) My threshold for voting on topicality is pretty high. If their interpretation is actually abusive and causing ground loss/education loss/etc, run it, but I don't necessarily enjoy t debates that are introduced just because you can. I won't drop folks if they run a topicality arg that I don't like of course, I just think your time might be better spent on something else with me in the back of the room. If you love T and you run it every round and it doesn't feel like debating for you without it, then please carry on.

(3) I am interested in critical debates, but I have been out of the debate world for a minute, teaching middle school social studies and being a mom, so you are going to want to explain your argument in pretty fine detail. Unlike some of your judges, I am usually not devoting a bunch of my free time to reading and cutting literature exclusively for debate. I think you should always be detailed as a rule, but I just want to be clear that I am probably not the best judge for blippy and/or very generic kritiks. Explaining your story on the link level is very important, I want to hear explicitly how you're jumping from point A to point B.

(4) I don't think that debate is just a game. I don't necessarily mind judging traditional policy-oriented rounds, but it's always important to keep in mind that the statistics and literature and news headlines that are just a means to a ballot for some are real life for many others, both within and without the debate space. Be thoughtful. Be measured. Be kind.

Debated at Georgia Tech for 3 years (Mostly Parlimentary debate, and one or two policy tournaments)

Debated at Marquette High School for 4 years (2 years policy, 2 years LD, with PF sprinkled in)

TL;DR You do you fam.

2L;DR I'm not going to pretend like I know everything about policy, but I'm always willing to listen to new arguments that are well presented and convincing.

At the end of the day, I'm looking for the team that can present the most compelling narrative. The use of the word 'narrative' doesn't necessarily have anything to do with personal narrative (which I will of course listen to), but the cohesive story you are able to create at every level with your arguments. Make the clear connections that sell your position from the ground up. How does your evidence support your argument? How does your argument uphold your framework? Why is your framework the best answer to the question asked by the resolution?

Some things you can do to help me help you:

1. Speed - I might be a little out of practice going into this tournament, so please be mindful of the fact that I might not be able to understand you if you're going to fast. 90% of the time, this shouldn't be a problem. For the rest 10% of the time, I will let you know by lowering my laptop cover or putting down my pen (This depends on how environmentally friendly I'm feeling at the moment).

2. Explain your arguments - I'd like to think I know all the jargon of debate, but the truth is that it's been a while. Explain your arguments, and do so in the context of the round. Saying something is an 'a priori' argument does you no good if you can't explain why.

3. Make the connections for me - I'm pretty lazy when it comes to interpreting arguements. I'm not going to make that double turn for you if you don't point it out. Sure, I might not think that you link into that disad, but I'm definitely going to go ahead and weigh it against you if you don't answer. Make the connections, do the work on the flow, and stay organized. I'm a pretty simple guy.

Feel free to ask me any questions otherwise!*

*Do NOT ask me: "Do you have any specific preferences?" or some other variant of that question. 1) That's what this paradigm thing is for. b) I'll always respond with "Do you have any specific questions?"

In general, I take a real world approach to debate. I am not persuaded by tenuous links to a nuke war impact and would rather vote for real arguments based on likely consequences of policy proposals in the case of policy debate. I believe parliamentary debate should not always be limited to a policy framework and that debaters should structure the debate as the resolution dictates. I am a limited tab judge, which means I won’t divorce my common sense from the evaluation of your arguments and if you state things that the an average intelligent person knows is not true, I won’t give it credit (e.g., Kanye West is the democratic nominee for President).

Experience

I have participated in and/or coached every form of debate.  Currently, I am the DOF at Morehouse College where we engage in NPDA, BP, IPDA, and some times Public Forum. I have coached teams to Pi Kappa Delta National Championships in NPDA debate 4 times in the last three years, and Morehouse finished 6th in NPDA Sweepstakes.  

Topicality

I believe the Gov has an obligation to present a Topical case.  If it doesn’t then I believe Opp should run T and challenge their interpretation of the resolution.  If they don’t, then it’s accepted.  Your standards (or counterstandards) on T are up to you, but I’m not a big fan of debatablity or education.  You can be debateable and educational and still be nontopical.  The correct/best interpretation of words is a real issue in debate and the real world.

I believe T is always a voting issue and never a reverse voter. I expect any critical Govs or performance based advocacy to be topical.  If your links to the topic aren’t strong you should reconsider running it against me.  I am still Tabby, but you will start off at a disadvantage without solid links.

Trichotomy

I believe strongly that Parli debate should some times be Policy, sometimes Value, and sometimes Fact.  I also believe that on some resolutions people can reasonably disagree.  I enjoy a good substantive discussion about the round and the framework that the debate should operate under, but by all means don’t argue this for the sake of arguing it or because I said I like it.

DAs

If there is a plan in the debate and you’re Opp, you should have some.  However, I will vote on traditional stock issues if you win there.  Please don’t feel the need to state large impacts with tenuous links just so your impact calculus sounds better.  I more realistic and likely

Counterplans

For me, these must be nontopical, mutually exclusive, and net beneficial.  I don’t like conditional counterplans in Parli – too much room for abuse. Any other questions just ask. Also, no CPs in the MO.

Kritiks

Please don’t assume I have read any of the philosophical or critical literature upon which you base your arguments. I expect debaters to explain their positions sufficiently in round to justify me voting for it. I am generally open various philosophical approaches to the round.

Things I don’t like:

Tag team POIs – it’s your partner’s speech let them answer.  If they can’t it will hurt their speaker points.

Splitting the block – you just can’t do this in Parli.  MO must respond with any new arguments Opp wants in the debate or to respond to MG.  I am ok with new examples and new analysis in the LOR, but they must connect to preexisting arguments from constructives.

Excessive Speed – Twenty years ago I was a policy debater.  I was fast, but not the fastest for sure. My dislike of speed (particularly for speedsake or loading up the flow) now comes not from my inability to flow it, but for my preference in parliamentary debate that the manner in which you speak is as important as the matter or substance that you deliver.  I enjoy hearing speeches that could persuade anyone (i.e., not only debate coaches and former debaters).  Some people naturally speak fast, and that’s ok with me as long as you are articulate, have good structure, and sign post well.  I also think debaters should make conscious decisions about what positions to run and not attempt to throw the kitchen sink out and see what sticks (or what is dropped).  I will vote on dropped positions, but you are unlikely to win the round just because your opponent dropped your little 3 on Advantage 2, Subpoint A. 

Performance/Project – I believe that Gov should be topical no matter what style case they decide to run.  I believe that Parli debate is about the resolution so you should make sure that your case has a clear link and also see my comments on T.

Bill Newnam

Emory University

Coaching Policy Debate since 1978

I view debate primarily as an educational activity devoted to the development of sound argumentation grounded in strong evidence and warranted claims.  I attempt to evaluate all arguments based upon the quality of supporting evidence and reasons.  I evaluate theory arguments based on their educational value as well as their fairness.  I expect students to make relevant comparisons that explain why their arguments should win the debate vis-a-vis their opponents arguments.  Failure to execute argumentative comparisons leaves far too much decision-making in the hands of the judge.  I advise that you control the debate by identifying the winning arguments and explain why you won the debate.

My judging paradigm is critic of argument. I believe that tabula rasa is a myth as I cannot separate myself from my life experiences, my culture, and my debate training. However, I will listen to any argument that is made, and do my very best to judge it on its merit based on logic, reasoning, evidence, and grounding in a philosophy. You need not make major adjustments to me as I have no idea where you are in your training, your coach's goals, your goals, etc. In all, don't make any major changes just because I am sitting in the back of the room, or in cyberspace, with my trusty computer.

Some points of my paradigm refer to all formats of debate; some are format and circuit specific. I strive specify when a part of my judging approach refers to a particular format and the educational objects I perceive most of that format to emphasize.

Here are some facts you need to know about me:

1) BIO-- I started debating in my native town of Winston-Salem, NC, at Paisley High School (9th and 10th grade) during the first Nixon administration (1972). Policy debate (I was taught at Wake Forest camps) was the only form of debate then, and cards were actually literal cards. I did policy debate in senior high school (R.J.Reynolds); individual events in college (competed for UNC 1977-1979), and was a graduate assistant student in individual events at Nebraska in 1983-1984, but never during that time quit judging policy debate. I was director of forensics at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, where I was the director a comprehensive tournament (we offered everything) from 1984-2001, and learned NDT and CEDA coaching because of a high student demand. My second life as a coach (technically a volunteer adviser for a student run program) started at the University of North Georgia where, as we like to say in the Southeast, a group of students "up and formed a club" and asked me to be there adviser in 2006, with club recognition coming in 2007. UNG currently has debaters and speakers from all of its campuses, and we sponsor a Pi Kappa Delta chapter.. We host end of the semester free novice tournaments, host a state IE tournament run by Berry College each spring, and are actively involved in service learning activities with the Atlanta Urban Debate League. Courses related to debate and speech that I developed and teach at UNG include Public Speaking (forensics version), Argumentation and Debate, Persuasion and Argumentation, first and second year Practicum in Debate and Speech; and third and fourth year Practicum in Debate and Speech. All courses ultimately arose from a student initiative.

In short, I am as old as the hills am still enjoying debate and speech as I enter my 50th year in the activity in 2021-2022. Nevertheless, and importantly, I am not an "argument type or style bigot" and celebrate all forms of debating and approaches to argumentation in this world.

2) Topicality--I view this as a serious ethical charge against another team. To win it, you must win the following steps of this argument hands down: 1) establish and win a clear standard for Topicality (such as reasonability (skewed affirmative); best definition (skewed negatively) or better definition (more even but even neutrality being a good thing is debatable); 2) establish clearly and virtually undeniably that the affirmative has violated a key term, or terms, of the resolution; 3 [importantly] offer a synergistic model of what a topical position would be; and 4) why topicality is a voting issue for the negative.

In extreme cases, I will even consider T as a reverse voter, if affirmative shows that a negative topicality argument is frivolous.

3) Kritiks--love them. The best debates are link wars.

4) Kritiks involving performance--love them, but be careful you way you run them if you choose to do so. The art is rapidly evolving in all circuits of debate. If your performance (or any form of argument) is generic (run round after round regardless of topic),be sure that the link to the round is tight.

5) Speed--I will ask you to be clear if I'm having difficulty keeping up with your arguments. Keep in mind that unlike policy debating with fixed resolution, I cannot look at the cards after the round as I do in policy debate or fixed topic LD, if the format involves a topic which varies each round.

6) I like the stock issues approach when the wording is policy; but am open top hypo testing, counterfactuals, anything as long as you explain your positions and defend them successfully. Again, I try not to be an argument or style "bigot" but see the above on being a critic of argument (taught to me by the UNC debate coach Bill Balthrop) years ago. Look up his writings on it--IMHO they still apply today even though debate has changed much over the past five decades of my involvement in it prior to the 2020s.

7) Structure, evidence, logic, emotional appeal, the story dimension of debating--as Martha Stewart would say, good things.

8) "Generic" arguments and turns are okay, but play the link game effectively and you will more likely come out on top. We all like novel approaches.

9) Trichot) (for NPDA debating in college)--again not a bigot against trichot arguments, although the best debates IMHO are in policy oriented debates where we go the extra step in proving what works, or what is best philosophically justified (as in who bites and does not bite a kritik).

If this is a world format round, please adhere to the commonly practiced norms in that format. Ask if any details you like to before the round in cases where I'm indicated as the chief judge.

Regardless of the format, clear claims, evidence and examples to back the claims; and impacts are the fundamental key to winning arguments and debates; the the four-step refutation process: 1) let me know which argument you are on; 2) give me a counter-argument; 3) give me reasons and evidence to prefer your counter argument; and 4) give the impact--all four steps--are the keys to neutralizing or turning arguments, IMHO, regardless of debating format or type.

Clear, numbered voting issues, labeled such, in the last rebuttals (or last three min of negative rebuttal in any form of LD), are also good and a students ability to do this often makes a difference between winning and losing a ballot when the round is close.

Don't underestimate the ability of an old man to hear your arguments.

Above all, have fun and keep it all into perspective although we are all here to compete as a vehicle for learning.

Shiloh Rainwater – Mercer University

Background: I competed in parliamentary debate for roughly 5 years at Pepperdine University and Los Rios Community College. I am currently pursuing my JD at Emory Law School in Atlanta, GA.

Overview: I think that debate is an academic game and that virtually any strategy/argument is permissible in that game. I generally have no absolute predisposition toward any argument, and will attempt to objectively analyze the debate as you present it. With that said, I think debate should be hard and educational. I prefer policy arguments, and nuanced strategies tailored to the topic/round are usually better than generic ones. Unless you instruct me otherwise, I will default to a utilitarian/consequentialist framework to evaluate the round. Other thoughts and preferences:

Speed: Speed is not an issue, so long as you’re clear. I think that speed—when used properly—is critical to both breadth and depth of analysis and education, and is therefore productive. It would be enormously difficult to convince me otherwise.

Topicality: Topicality is a critical check on abusive affirmatives and a key tool to ensure a stable locus for the debate—T is thus always a voting issue. Absent any explication of an alternative framework, I will default to competing interpretations. Reading T is not abusive, nor is it genocidal or oppressive; it is simply a gateway to actually engaging in a productive discussion.

Other Procedurals/Theory: I like/will vote for these arguments, although my threshold is somewhat higher than for T. Specification is hard to win absent proven abuse, i.e. the aff no-linking your position, although I am by no means wholly opposed to any spec argument. There are too many theoretical arguments to discuss, but I find some positions particularly compelling and read frequently as a debater: These include vagueness, objections to multiple worlds, multi actor fiat bad, and “take a question” arguments. In general, you should have an interpretation, standards, and impacts as well as a framework to evaluate these arguments.

Counterplans: Conditionality is theoretically legitimate. Counterplans should generally be both functionally and textually competitive. All generic strategies (PICs/consult/delay/etc.) are fine, as are theoretical objections to these strategies—as a reference point, I read XO/politics almost every neg round my final year. Multiple counterplans are fine, but I am open to hearing/voting on “multiple conditional advocacies bad.” New counterplans in the block are abusive.

Disadvantages: Disad/CP strategies are probably where I’m most comfortable. Any and all disads are fine, including politics. You should spend time on the uniqueness debate and especially the link, which is almost always vastly under-covered. Impact calculus wins debates.

Kritiks: I rarely read kritiks as a debater, but that is not to say that I dislike them or that I will not vote on them. You should assume that I have not read your literature (I was a poli sci major) and that I know nothing about your authors (because I probably don’t). In general, however, I dislike generic Ks (e.g. reading Cap or Nietzsche every round). And above all, whether you’re running a project, performance, or traditional K, your framework and advocacy should be abundantly obvious—as mentioned in the overview, absent instructions to the contrary, I will evaluate your arguments through a utilitarian/consequentialist lens.

Advocacies and interpretations: All advocacies should be repeated at least once. Textual advocacies should ideally be written down and shared with the other team (and possibly the judge(s)?). Slow down when reading topicality/theory/procedural interpretations, and repeat them once if they’re especially complex or long.

Disclosure: Teams should not be compelled to disclose their strategies prior to the round. This argument is incoherent and has no place in parliamentary debate. Topicality is the correct strategy for answering abusive and unpredictable affirmatives.

General Information:

Background in debate with NPDA, IPDA, WUDC, Public Forum, APDA, and Long Table. 

Comfortable with alll speeds in debate. i flow mostly on laptops so its not a challenge for me at all usually.

Kritiks:

Receptive to all Kritiks, kritik theory and disagreements about kritik theory. Would rather not reveal my personal opinions on the matter as I feel it may prompt debaters to appeal to them. Debate however you see fit, if your warrants and supporting arguments are stronger than your opponents', I'll prefer you whether I want to or not.

Tabula Rasa?

I try to be as tabby as possible within a debate round. However, falsification or deliberate bastardization of commonly known facts will not be acceptable, as this is an academic endeavor as well. However, I have specified knowledge on a variety of topics. If there is a misinterpretation of specified information that I know to be true because of my familiarity, yet, goes unchallenged in the round, I will accept that misinterpretation as true. 

Do I protect against new arguments in the rebuttals?

Yes! I do protect against new arguments. However, I still HIGHLY encourage people raise objections about new arguments if you do hear them, as it shows you are still engaged in the debate.

Performance Debate?

I will vote on anything you tell me to. However, I will note that I dont feel judges currently have the tools, theory, or literature, to properly evaluate scenarios in which both teams run performance.

Other relevant info:

Your speaker points are positively and negatively affected by your asking of Points of Information. If you individually have asked 0 POIs, I cannot give you more than a 26.5. This format is extemporaneous. Adequately fulfilling your role as a speaker requires you satisfy all speaking roles in a Parliamentary debate. Asking questions is one of them. FIELDING questions is another. 

James Roland

Emory University

13+ years coaching debate

You can plan for the picnic, but you can’t predict the weather.

-Outkast

Debate is AWESOME! It is the best vehicle I have found to date for learning. I did quite a bit of debating, and judging back in the day, but not so much now. This means I know little about the topic, but I work hard to listen to the debate in front of me and evaluate it on its own merits. Let me share a metaphor that might help. I feel my role as a “critic of argument” is not to foreclose your opportunity to eat off the grand buffet of argument, but to let you “fix” your plate. A good debate will provide me with the explanations, links, impacts, etc. for why I should eat off your plate versus your opponents. But understand once the debate is over, I am totally comfortable with my role as a “food”/argument critic. So just because you fix the plate doesn’t mean I will automatically eat it.

Regardless, I will honestly listen to pretty much anything, and as a result I have judged just about every type of debate imaginable. Despite providing such argumentative latitude, I am still big on respect in all its forms. Debate is a laboratory to explore argument in both form and content, but the educational and social benefits of debate lessen when we lessen our commitment to “doing” debate that is build upon a foundation of respect and love.

Here is how I see some specific areas of the debate:

Theory

Do whatever you like, as long as you thoughtfully weigh the impacts of the competing interpretations of any given theory debate. Most theory debates tend to be each side just reading blocks at each other – contextualize the debate. Explain why in the context of this debate why you are right and your opponent is wrong (or less right). Explain what values or goals are furthered by your theoretical framework. Like just about every type of argument in the debate – be clear about the link(s) and impact(s). 

Topicality/Framework

See the section on theory. As a reminder, you should focus on the implications of your interpretation as a whole, compared with the other team’s interpretation (or lack thereof).

Counterplans

See the section on theory. I am open to all types, but most of the debates I have judged - the perm tends to be the part that becomes the most important to my decision, so take that bit of info for what it is worth.

Critiques, Performance, etc.

Make sure to get to the core questions as early as possible in the debate. For example, I usually see the core questions as; the link; establishing frameworks for how the case and the alternative for the K interact, etc. Still want to see the link and impact to your critique/performance/etc. Open to hearing new and creativity things, but just because I will listen doesn’t mean I will automatically vote for you. Each debate must/should be debated on its merits.

Cross-X

Make them meaningful. Few things are better that a strategic and purposeful c-x. Many debates can be won (and lost for that matter) with an effective cross-x.

Evidence

Open here too. I believe evidence can come in multiple forms (cards, music, spoken word, etc.). Regardless of the form I want to see good evidence comparison by both sides. Don’t take it for grant I know what you want your evidence to mean or be applied.

Style

Do you! I like funny, but if you are not – guess what? This is not the time to practice your stand up routine. I am cool with fast, slow, or in between. That is for you to decide. I will let you know if you are unclear. Be comfortable in your skin, and passionate about your arguments. Remember you are participating in one of the coolest activities on the planet – appreciate the moment!

Sure I am missing something you really want to know, so feel free to ask.

Much love!

I’m a graduate student at Valdosta State University. I debated parli & IPDA debate as an undergrad. I have coach debate for two years.

I believe that competitive affs must: (a) prove significance, (b) provide harms, (c) cross inherency, (d) be topical, and (d) show solvency through plan action. I will listen to specs, topicality, and other procedural arguments (i.e., I do not have any artificial thresholds). DA impacts should have probability and magnitude and as a result, should probably rarely ever be "flashpoints" (e.g., nuke war, extinction). I will probably always vote on impacts that are narrative driven versus those that are not eloquently substantiated. Language is the vehicle of communication and as a result, I believe that language is astronomically important (i.e., do not use racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive language). Kritiks are a great tool to use when language: (a) perpetuates systems of oppression or (b) is offensive. I do not find verbose and needlessly convoluted philosophy persuasive, Kritiks must have clear links/triggers, and kritiks should not be used as an exclusionary tool. Remember that as a tabula rasa judge the argument you make is what goes on the flow. I do not make assumptions for you; however, if I catch you in a blatant lie you will probably get a nasty ballot back. I would prefer that counterplans are: (a) non-topical and (b) mutually exclusive. As of now I believe that conditionality is bad (try to take advantage of this disclosure) or help persuade me otherwise. I’ve never evaluated critical performance, so I do not have much of an opinion on it (not certain whether this is good or bad). Lastly, I believe that debate is an oratory event, so clarity is more important than speed. This is not to say that speed is inherently bad. However, depth will always outweigh breadth in my book. Additionally, I must warn you that because of my bias toward speed, I unlike some judges will vote for a speed-K if speed is used as a tactic for exclusion.

Also, I love Battlestar Galactica references (just throwing that out there).

Ricardo Saenz
Debated at Georgia Tech (Parli & Policy) for ~2 years
Debated at Alpharetta High School - 4 years

STEM background (studied Engineering in College)

Currently configure Leak Detection software for a Pipeline Company for a living.

risaenz(at)gmail

last updated 1/2/2020

TLDR: Debate what you're good at and debate well. I'll do my best to vote for the team that did the better debating.

General notes for everyone:

1. I vote for the team that did the better debating. What the "better debating" means is up to the debaters. If no one defines what it means to win the round, I usually default to weighing offense and defense. I also tend to be quick to decide rounds. It's not you... it's me!

2. Debate what you're comfortable with and debate it well. I don't really have many biases anymore and will hear you out on practically anything. There are a few arguments that will make me unhappy and affect your speaker points, but if you win the sheet of paper, you win the debate.

3. Add me to the email chain and please add your coaches, too. I will reply all with my comments and flow to the thread so y'all can have my record for redos.

4. I will try to keep with community norms in terms of speaker points. Just make sure I can understand you. You've seen me flow on the live stream so that should give you a good idea of my capabilities and limitations in that department.

4. It's very important that I can understand everything in your speech as I don't tend to read cards as much as most judges. I also try to write down key warrants on my flows and decide the round based on that.

5. I have been out of the activity for a while now and don't know much about the topic. Please keep that in mind and adjust accordingly.

6. Get the little stuff right - if it's clear that you have the paperless stuff down (no delays emailing, using flash drives etc...) you're likely to get on my good side and earn higher speaker points.

6. Let's all try to be friends here.

Argument Specific:

Performative Method - I am less persuaded by arguments that the ballot means something. That being said, I think arguments that focus on the scholarship of afro-pessimism and black feminism can be very persuasive. I am not very well read in the literature but did pick up a bunch from watching Kansas BR a bajillion times last year. Just be clear about what my role as a judge is and what the ballot means.

Kritiks - I don't really get Baudrillard but I think that's the point. If you want me to vote on one of your tricks, debate it well and impact it. Don't assume your job is done after the 1AR forgets the floating PIK. I debated many topic Ks back in the day, but make you explain stuff and... debate well...

Disads - Love DA/Case debates. This was one of my favorite strategies. Not much to say here.

Politics/Elections - sure

CPs - Make sure it competes. If it doesn't make sure you're good at theory.

Conditionality - I'm closer to 50/50 on this than most. Counterinterpetations are silly and self serving in these debates. The debate should be about conditionality being good or bad if it comes down to this.

Questions? Just ask!

1. Sure debate is game. But who said that games don't matter?

2. You are always you. You can say your roleplaying, but how do you roleplay out of your own ethics or responsibilities? Is that even possible?

3. Black lives matter. Black debaters matter.

4. The world is--literally--on fire. Right now, perhaps even our games should matter.

Background: 

Debated NPDA for 2 years, won multiple tournaments including states in 2014. Currently doing Worlds/BP debate.

Paradigm: 

I am a limited tab judge. I enjoy creative arguments, and am open to mostly anything. I have no problem with technical arguments or debate jargon.

Technical Arguments:

I generally don’t find trichotomy persuasive, especially if it’s between fact/value debates. By all means run it if you want, but you probably won’t win on it. 

I tend to feel the same way about topicality. Unless there is clear abuse, I don’t find it particularly persuasive 

Kritiks: 

The link between your kritik and the motion/gov case need to be extremely clear. In addition, you always need a clear alternative